Some things make me throw up in my mouth a little:
Q: Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist, under this definition, governor?
PALIN: (Sigh). There’s no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was one who sought to destroy our U.S. Capitol and our Pentagon. That is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now, others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or facilities that uh, it would be unacceptable. I don’t know if you’re going to use the word terrorist there.
I grow weary of these debates about what constitutes terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic used by disempowered people to try to change the political decisions of empowered people. The vast majority of the time, terrorism doesn’t work. Sometimes, it does. On the whole, terrorism, as a tactic, is both ineffective and immoral…if not always without some understandable rationale. Usually, there is some underlying grievance that fuels an act of terrorism. In Northern Ireland, it was the treatment of Catholics. In Spain, it was the desire for Basque autonomy. In Israel, it is the occupation of Arab lands (including, for some, the very existence of Israel on formerly Egyptian or Jordanian or Syrian land). [Ed. note: this was sloppy. To keep the timeline right, I should have said Ottoman land] Terrorism has not led to tangible gains for Palestinians or the Basque people, but it can be argued that it won the IRA concessions out of the United Kingdom and that it drove France out of Algeria. Regardless of effectiveness, any terrorism that kills innocent victims is morally repugnant. That remains true even when the terrorism is in response to morally repugnant behavior. What has proven more effective and more morally correct, is the kind of resistance shown by Gandhi, King Jr., and Mandela.
When William Ayers and the Weather Underground launched their spree of domestic terrorism, they were reacting to what they considered morally repugnant behavior in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia by the U.S. Government. They felt powerless to stop the war machine and they resorted to acts of terror and retribution. In spite of this, they were usually careful to give advanced warning and to attack at times when buildings would be empty. But they made a few exceptions that cost some people their lives. They murdered some people and plotted to murder more. And, their goal was terror, to terrify people into changing our foreign policy. In this, they were no different from the 9/11 hijackers, and they should be rightfully condemned for their actions.
But, let’s consider the case of an abortion clinic bomber. What are they trying to do? In their mind, they are responding to something they consider morally repugnant, and over which they feel powerless to effect change. They hope to terrify abortion providers into abandoning their practice. They are terrorists, too.
You’ll always find a certain segment of the population that has sympathy for terror. What happens is that some people share the terrorists’ grievance (over Palestine, over U.S. foreign policy, over French foreign policy, over British foreign policy, over Spanish domestic policy, over abortion). And they want change. And they share with the terrorists a sense of frustration and powerlessness which leads them to make excuses for acts of terror. We can sympathize with these people to a degree, but when it extends to countenancing murder, we have to draw the line and condemn their behavior. That is what Sarah Palin failed to do in this interview. And it makes her no better than the William Ayers she so likes to condemn.